Poverty: The Whole Spectrum

Poverty: The Whole Spectrum

Poverty for a family of four in the United States as defined by the Census Bureau is making less than $17,062 annually. This definition, however, is not able to fully cover all aspects of poverty. In order to fully define poverty, one must view it through multiple scopes: Social Science, Popular Writing, Science and Humanities. Social science first gives the researcher a general overview of the history of poverty and lays a foundation for the other disciplines to build upon. Popular writing then gives a broader understanding of the situation with general facts that give a more approachable look at the issue. This is then reaffirmed by the science discipline, which goes into more depth about the fundamental facts of poverty, completely void of opinionated theories. With this foundation of raw data, the humanities discipline is then able to assert an opinion on the matter and ask a question of application. It is only when these academic areas are used in harmony that a greater understanding of poverty can is achieved.

The claims that each source brings to the overall understanding varies depending on the discipline. These differences make it possible for someone to ascertain a complete understanding of poverty in the United States. In the social science article “One Nation, Pulling Apart: The Basis of Persistent Poverty in the USA”, the author Amy Glasmeier makes a claim that poverty in the united states has not stopped growing since the 1960’s (Glasmeier 160). Another claim, made by Jane Myers’ science article “Poor, Rural, and Female: Under-Studied, Under-Counseled, More-At-Risk” states that poverty has a direct affect on mental and health problems to those poverty stricken. Both authors make similar claims in the science fields in using factual information to solidify a complete understanding for poverty in the United States.

This understanding that is created by the science and social science articles has allowed other authors in the popular writing and humanities to make claims of their own. Steven Inskeep, the author of the popular writing article “A City Steps Up: Savannah Confronts Poverty” makes the claim that more “money, time, and understanding needs to be spent on the impoverished” (Inskeep 3). Lawrence Mead’s humanities article “The Culture of Welfare Reform” makes a similar yet slightly different claim in saying that “poverty is able to be defeated and not just through donations to the poor” (Mead 2). Both of these articles share the same weaknesses in that they both lack statistics and factual information. They both share the general idea of finding a solution to poverty but their ideas of solutions vary greatly. Inskeep’s solution idea states that those held captive by poverty must be freed by those that live above the poverty line. On the other hand, Mead believes that poverty can be beat by the hard work of those who live in it.

The data that each of the four articles gives the readers, even though generally similar, differ in that they each provide their own claims that changes the meaning of poverty in the United States that one may ascertain. Glasmeier uses several maps that show how different counties have become impoverished in the years between 1960 and 1997. She also presents statistics that reflect on the growth of counties in poverty distress in the United States has risen almost 400% over the last four decades (Glasmeier 160). Glasmeier also says that out of the counties in poverty, almost 50% if the people living in those counties fell below that national poverty line (Glasmeier 160). By researching the county maps of poverty, Glasmeier was able to arrive at a conclusion that was proved to be factual and unbiased. Evidence through the sciences has not only helped Glasmeier conclude her article, but many other authors dealing with poverty in the United States.

Like Glasmeier, Jane Myers also concluded her article with the help of scientific evidence. Myers begins her article with statistics that give some history of how nearly 9 million women are living in poverty and 1 in 5 women face living below the national poverty level (Myers 2). Myers also uses studies conducted in the past to help solidify her conclusion with exact percentages so her articles overall meaning can not be questioned. Using the articles from Glasmeier and Myers in sync with each other makes it possible to better understand the claim that both are trying to make. Both authors were able to form a complete understand that was easy to follow due to simple information and facts that deal with poverty in the United States.

Even though the social science and science articles presented much strength in the formation of solutions to poverty, neither one actually mentions what can be done to stop it. Two authors that do mention what is being done to stop